Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Item Creation and Wealth

[AsmodeusDM]

Started about a few months ago getting into PF.

I played 3.x from the day it came out at GenCon until around the Book of Nine Swords.

Still lots of little changes we find ourselves getting tripped up on (boy o' boy I'd love a document link that says: these are the differences between 3.5 and Pathfinder)... but one that we did notice right away was magical item creation had 1.) a spellcraft check and 2.) no XP costs.

This seemed fine at first, and kinda a nice relief for the wizard who began happily creating scrolls without losing the 1 or 2 XP they would have normally had.

However, we are now level 5-6 , a few item creation feats later... and I'm noticing a couple of things

#1) The Wizard can no longer fail (in a meaningful way) their Spellcraft check to make the items. It's essentially automatic as it was in 3.5.. which is fine I guess...but

#2) With no XP costs, and item creation costs halved. The group by my rough math has about twice the expected wealth they should have.

a.) They find gold, gems, art (i.e. 100% value) which they then use to make magic items at half price. Giving them a 200% return value.

b.) They find magic item they don't want... which they sell for half... but then are able to make new items out of ... again for half... so it's a 1:1 conversion process there is, essentially, no incentive for them to keep treasure unless it's EXACTLY what they wanted.


This may become less of an issue once they hit the effective "gp cap" of their city.

But it's only a matter of time before the wiz/clr gets a portal/teleport spell.. and even the rogue has a hippogriff mount with magical flight speed enhancing harness which he could use to get to the campaign's "major metropolis" in a reasonable amount of travel time..

Just curious if the Wealth By Level charts are supposed to be effectively doubled by a wiz/clr who has Craft Wondrous and Craft A&A?

 

[Derfmancher]

#1) The Wizard can no longer fail (in a meaningful way) their Spellcraft check to make the items. It's essentially automatic as it was in 3.5.. which is fine I guess...but

#2) With no XP costs, and item creation costs halved. The group by my rough math has about twice the expected wealth they should have.

a.) They find gold, gems, art (i.e. 100% value) which they then use to make magic items at half price. Giving them a 200% return value.

b.) They find magic item they don't want... which they sell for half... but then are able to make new items out of ... again for half... so it's a 1:1 conversion process there is, essentially, no incentive for them to keep treasure unless it's EXACTLY what they wanted.

1) My group has not had a Wiz that ever played with any regularity, but make sure you check your math. Some items require more spells, and might be more difficult.

2) The item creation is not half the listed creation cost, but half of the purchase price.

a) If this is a problem, simply stop giving them things they can use. Have all future wealth awards be in the form of lead bars

b) Thats exactly what my group did. They had a "shared inventory" (stuff placed in a cart that no one wanted to use. Some of my coolest things they got ended up there because no one even tested them out or anything. My point is this, the world is yours and you control the dynamic. Perhaps the wiz is missing a key component only available on a small remote island, perhaps the king decides that he alone should have magic item "X". Hope this helped.

 

[Salthorae]

This is actually one of my main issues with Pathfinder. I like a lot of the stuff they did to clean up the 3.5 rules, but the switch from XP to Gold costs for Item Creation and a lot of the XP based spells (Wish...) was just a little too much for me.

It SHOULD cost you something to craft a magic item or cast some of those spells. There needs to be a cost to it so that players think twice about resorting to some spells and/or crafting.

 

[billd91]

#1) The Wizard can no longer fail (in a meaningful way) their Spellcraft check to make the items. It's essentially automatic as it was in 3.5.. which is fine I guess...but

The DCs are generally pretty easy. That's by intent. But the crafter now has options to omit requirements and shorting crafting times that do increase the DC, potentially into failure/curse territory. It's a nice trade-off - hasty crafting and incomplete prep in return for potential for a curse.

#2) With no XP costs, and item creation costs halved. The group by my rough math has about twice the expected wealth they should have.

a.) They find gold, gems, art (i.e. 100% value) which they then use to make magic items at half price. Giving them a 200% return value.

b.) They find magic item they don't want... which they sell for half... but then are able to make new items out of ... again for half... so it's a 1:1 conversion process there is, essentially, no incentive for them to keep treasure unless it's EXACTLY what they wanted.

<snip>

Just curious if the Wealth By Level charts are supposed to be effectively doubled by a wiz/clr who has Craft Wondrous and Craft A&A?

The XP cost wasn't really much of a deterrent to crafting in 3.5 in practice either. So these factors really were there before.
If you're concerned, start building treasures with a higher proportion of gear that must be sold for half price rather than in cash/jewelry. I think that will naturally occur as characters advance and level-appropriate magic becomes more expensive. That should keep the ratio closer to the 1:1 you get when you convert unwanted items into wanted ones via magic item crafting.

 

[Nebten]

You only have 1 PC that can create magic items right? Remember it is 1000 gp per day of crafting. He can only work on one item at a time. When they get to higher levels, it could take a few weeks to craft one item. That is not something a wizard can do while hanging out in a dungeon or when the countryside is being ravaged by the undead horde.

Also, the party should not be in a position to sell all their magic items unless there is a large city nearby.

To answer your question: no, the wealth tables shouldn't be doubled for crafters. When it doubt, send in a magic fearing sundering-item barbarian tribe or a disjuncting monolith.

Enjoy!

 

[sheadunne]

In my experience, Pathfinder assumes that you're running an AP or that your campaign doesn't have extended periods of down time. The time issues is usually the biggest deterrent to crafting. If you only have a week to craft items and you have an entire party to craft for, you're going to have to make some hard choices. I've noticed no significant change in WPL over the course of an AP, which manages time in a way that prevents mass item crafting.

Also, the 3x system didn't work. It was too easy to game the system and actually come out with more XP than non-crafters.

I believe that Pathfinder also assumes that there is no "treasure horde" of coins and gems. It expects that most of your treasure will come from items. If your game relies on coin over items, consider giving out half the amount of coin to balance the WPL.

Otherwise, the system seems to work fine. There are a few times where characters may be over the WPL and other times when they're below it. It's a gage for GMs to adjust the treasure they are giving out.

There's also the issue of base limits that any particular settlement has for gp and magic items. Unless the PCs have access to a city, they'll reach a point where they can't actually sell or buy anything.

There are plenty of balancing factors, but it's up to the GM to enforce them or not.

 

[milo]

I would agree that time should be the biggest deterrent here. Also how many of the item creation feats does he have? He can't create everything at this point I wouldn't think. If he used all of his feats for Item creation then he should be seriously gimped.

 

[Salthorae]

Also, the 3x system didn't work. It was too easy to game the system and actually come out with more XP than non-crafters.

How do you gain XP by crafting and selling items?

I agree though that time will probably be the biggest limiting factor and it depends on how much you give the players. The AP's assume almost 0 downtime as noted, and once they're finished...

it is up to the DM to balance, but I still disagree with changing out all the XP costs in 3.X with additional gold costs. Of course I don't allow other character to pay the XP cost either... only the crafter.

 

[sheadunne]

You wait to craft until you're just about to level. The rest of the party levels and you stay one level behind. In 3x you gained more XP if you were lower level, so a wizard could effectively pass the rest of the party. Then you spend the "extra" XP on more crafting, rinse, and repeat. The system was easy if you understood the xp system and how to craft effectively.

In Pathfinder, they removed the additional XP you received for being low level, so it would be impossible for a crafter to catch up. In fact, in Pathfinder, an XP cost would prevent me from every bothering to take crafting feats, or cast spells with XP components (which they removed as a cost). They also removed XP costs from level drain as well.

I usually play crafters, since I find them necessary in most games, but I haven't noticed any particular WPL issues at all.

 

[N'raac]

The removal of the xp cost facilitates characters remaining at the same level as a team (imagine if we said it costs 1 XP whenever the Fighter uses, say, Improved Critical), and advancement at the speed of plot.

Its addition in 3rd when all characters otherwise advanced at the same pace was, IMO, a mistake.

One need not track xp and meticulously plan crafting, either. Even if the GM were to track all xp, getting a bonus when a level behind would ensure the character catches up over time. OTOH, when everyone goes from 1st to 2nd, except the Wizard because he's 3 xp short thanks to those scrolls he scribed, how likely are item creation feats to be used going forward? There's little point having a magic creation system if it's punitive to its users. Fighter wants a magic sword and I have to fall behind so he can have one? Gee, that's fair!